I'm simultaneously glad to see it and sorry that it came to this. Though I can't find the link now, I'm almost certain I remember Allan saying that he'd only do this if he was unhappy with the state of 2.0 development.

I'm simultaneously glad to see it and sorry that it came to this. Though I can't find the link now, I'm almost certain I remember Allan saying that he'd only do this if he was unhappy with the state of 2.0 development.

I've only tried the alpha back in winter and then it seemed like it was continuing along the Duke Nukem Forever timeline. Nuken came out and sucked. The alpha came out and sucked. Doubly so now that we have Sublime Text, Chocolat, and BBEdit 10 out.

Amusing but indicative of a deeper issue. He's released it under GPLv3 to "avoid a closed source fork" but is demanding that patches from outside contributors be released in the public domain (not GPLv3) so that he can incorporate them into his own closed-source fork.

It's well within his rights to do so, but it's pretty hostile to would-be contributors, especially since most of his community has already moved on to other editors (so any goodwill he can get is helpful if he wants the project to survive).

If you don't want to make a public domain contribution to his code, fork and distribute your own TextMate (under a different name, of course) under the GPL. The guy who wrote the code in the first place wanting to be the only one who can distribute a closed version seems fair to me.

Amusing but indicative of a deeper issue. He's released it under GPLv3 to "avoid a closed source fork" but is demanding that patches from outside contributors be released in the public domain (not GPLv3) so that he can incorporate them into his own closed-source fork.

Amusing but indicative of a deeper issue. He's released it under GPLv3 to "avoid a closed source fork" but is demanding that patches from outside contributors be released in the public domain (not GPLv3) so that he can incorporate them into his own closed-source fork.

It's well within his rights to do so, but it's pretty hostile to would-be contributors, especially since most of his community has already moved on to other editors (so any goodwill he can get is helpful if he wants the project to survive).

If you don't want to make a public domain contribution to his code, fork and distribute your own TextMate (under a different name, of course) under the GPL. The guy who wrote the code in the first place wanting to be the only one who can distribute a closed version seems fair to me.

Having the copyright assigned is different to making it public domain, though. If the copyright exists, then it is still covered by the terms of the GPL – i.e. any changes would have to be released back as GPL code, and users of any fork must be provided the binary. By asking them to put it in the public domain, the code can be incorporated into his own (closed) fork without the GPL taking effect, but his code cannot be incorporated into a closed fork. It's asymmetrical in what people can do.

If you don't want to make a public domain contribution to his code, fork and distribute your own TextMate (under a different name, of course) under the GPL. The guy who wrote the code in the first place wanting to be the only one who can distribute a closed version seems fair to me.

Having the copyright assigned is different to making it public domain, though. If the copyright exists, then it is still covered by the terms of the GPL – i.e. any changes would have to be released back as GPL code, and users of any fork must be provided the binary. By asking them to put it in the public domain, the code can be incorporated into his own (closed) fork without the GPL taking effect, but his code cannot be incorporated into a closed fork. It's asymmetrical in what people can do.

It's worse than that. I could take any code the developers submit as public domain and incorporate it in any project I want without attribution, compensation or explicit permission. It's just a question of how flexible the code is.

It's worse than that. I could take any code the developers submit as public domain and incorporate it in any project I want without attribution, compensation or explicit permission. It's just a question of how flexible the code is.

Or, indeed, that. A lot of people assume that groups like the FSF are anti-copyright, but the fact is that the GPL and its ilk can't exist without it.

You know what else is asymmetrical? The size of any plausible pull request vs the size of the entire TextMate code base. I wonder how many complainers would ever produce a useful patch under any terms?

I'd bet if you had some crazy large, high quality pull request in there you could negotiate some other terms. Otherwise you'd be free to maintain your own full GPL branch.

You know what else is asymmetrical? The size of any plausible pull request vs the size of the entire TextMate code base. I wonder how many complainers would ever produce a useful patch under any terms?

I'd bet if you had some crazy large, high quality pull request in there you could negotiate some other terms. Otherwise you'd be free to maintain your own full GPL branch.

Yes, the code base is an impressive volume of work. But let's not kid ourselves – if Alan Odgaard were willing and able to finish up TextMate 2 and release it as a commercial project, he would have done so. This is essentially throwing it on the mercy of the community, and as such the project should be set up to appeal to that community. It doesn't really matter what's completely, objectively fair, in this case; the fact that some contributors are required to (essentially) licence their code differently to others is galling.

Besides the fact that open sourcing the code is a white flag of surrender and an admission that TM2 will never reach a production ready state, I think that open sourcing the code is only a net positive for users.

Basically, having the option to improve my text editor is better than simply not having that option. It is impossible to see a downside here, and there is potential upside. Again, in a hypothetical world in which TM2 existed as a useful piece of software, I can easily see myself contributing small patches and just giving them back to TM2. It benefits me to have a motivated, paid maintainer while still having the ability to scratch my own itches.

Worst case, not even one person ever writes a patch for it. This is the degenerate case which is functionally equivalent to having it closed source. In any other case, where even one person writes an improvement and sends it back upstream, all users benefit >0, including the author of the patch.

I honestly don't GAF about abstract concepts of fairness. This model is strictly better for me than a closed source model.

alexr: What masonk said. (As an aside, I think we all agree that this isn't a sign of a pending TM2 release.)

Yesterday, nobody had any way to touch the core TextMate codebase, commercially or otherwise. Today, some sort of option is available, and the developer has even explicitly stated he's open to reconsidering licensing in whole or in part. If you find that galling, you must go apoplectic if you watch the evening news.

Be honest; was there any chance you'd ever submit a pull request under any license?

*Please let a Linux and Windows fork come of this. Please let a Linux and Windows fork come of this. Please let a Linux and Windows fork come of this.*

I love me some Espresso. A lot. But there's no Windows or Linux version.

I like Notepad++ well enough, but it's not nearly as nice as Espresso. And of course there's no Mac or Linux version (regardless of how well it may or may not work with WINE.)

I like Gedit and Kate well enough, but they're no Notepad++, much less Espresso.

Vi/Vim hurts my brain, yet despite that I keep trying to use it. I keep trying because I long for a solid, cross-platform text editor that can be both a basic text editor, or full on code editor with completion, highlighting, etc. I don't need a full IDE, I just want something light and fast when I need light and fast, but still able to ramp up to more involved tasks when needed.

I've only used a trial of TextMate because I never could justify the price as I don't do enough coding or html for it. The only reason I have Espresso is I got it on a MacHeist, and the upgrade to 2.0 only cost me $20. I know from my limited use that TextMate is even more capable than Espresso. If I can get it on all my OSes, I might just faint.

I'm willing to pay, just not the $80+ that most of these editors are asking. If I hadn't gotten Espresso on a MacHeist, I'd probably just be using Komodo Edit. But I didn't start using it until after I'd gotten a taste of Espresso, so it just pales in comparison. Also gave a go of Sublime Text and wasn't really liking it compared to Espresso, though that was pre-2.0, so maybe it's gotten better. Going to give it another shot, especially now that it's on all OSes. $60's still more than I want to spend on a text editor, but if I like it well enough I might make an exception.

alexr: What masonk said. (As an aside, I think we all agree that this isn't a sign of a pending TM2 release.)

Yesterday, nobody had any way to touch the core TextMate codebase, commercially or otherwise. Today, some sort of option is available, and the developer has even explicitly stated he's open to reconsidering licensing in whole or in part.

It's certainly better than it withering on the vine with its source still closed, certainly. But what is the Mac Ach for if not griping about things that are better, but not ideal?

Quote:

If you find that galling, you must go apoplectic if you watch the evening news.

Unfortunately, I do. I've found life improved by taking a more distant approach to current affairs, in general...

Quote:

Be honest; was there any chance you'd ever submit a pull request under any license?

Honestly? A few years ago, when I was heavily using TextMate, yes. Nowadays I seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time surrounded by Lisp code, and Emacs is pretty much the only editor that does Lisp indentation properly (largely because proper Lisp indentation seems to be defined as 'whatever Emacs does'). Maybe I'll come back to TM eventually; I loved it once, I might love it again. Maybe I'll get stuck permanently in some Emacs meta-meta-meta editing mode, and be forced to write a nicer Lisp mode for TextMate

alexr: What masonk said. (As an aside, I think we all agree that this isn't a sign of a pending TM2 release.)

Yesterday, nobody had any way to touch the core TextMate codebase, commercially or otherwise. Today, some sort of option is available, and the developer has even explicitly stated he's open to reconsidering licensing in whole or in part. If you find that galling, you must go apoplectic if you watch the evening news.

Be honest; was there any chance you'd ever submit a pull request under any license?

I've actually submitted code to multiple GPLv2 projects. I will not submit code to a GPLv3 project. I will not submit code as "Public Domain" of anything more than mere snippets. To submit substantial code to a GPLv3 project I would need to hire a lawyer.

So yeah, I find his choice of license poor. A theoretical willingness to negotiate licensing terms is meaningless when the initial terms are at the wrong end of the spectrum.

If you find that galling, you must go apoplectic if you watch the evening news.

Unfortunately, I do. I've found life improved by taking a more distant approach to current affairs, in general...

Well, at least I know where you're coming from then. Frankly I can't watch it either.

@topham: Agreed, I'm a bit weirded out by GPL3 specifically. GPL2 would have been a better choice. But in the end it's his choice to make, and while I might make suggestions I don't see the point in condemning him for it.

Anyway, this whole brouhaha has introduced me to Sublime Text, which looks like it could pry TM1 out from under my fingers. Sigh, just what I need, another text editor in my Applications folder. I should just go back to full-time vi.

If you don't want to make a public domain contribution to his code, fork and distribute your own TextMate (under a different name, of course) under the GPL. The guy who wrote the code in the first place wanting to be the only one who can distribute a closed version seems fair to me.

Having the copyright assigned is different to making it public domain, though. If the copyright exists, then it is still covered by the terms of the GPL – i.e. any changes would have to be released back as GPL code, and users of any fork must be provided the binary. By asking them to put it in the public domain, the code can be incorporated into his own (closed) fork without the GPL taking effect, but his code cannot be incorporated into a closed fork. It's asymmetrical in what people can do.

No, assigning copyright means assigning the right to decide how the code is distributed. The FSF is free to release a closed version of Emacs (assuming that all contributors have reassigned their copyrights).

What Odgaard is stating is basically that if you want him to incorporate your code into his non-free product, you need to give him the right to do that by putting it in the public domain. That's it.

Complaining that his right to maintain a closed version of TextMate is asymmetrical seems like misplaced entitlement. Should he have kept the source closed, you can bet that you'd need to assign the copyright to him if you contributed something, so why is it worse that he's additionally allowing people to redistribute his code under the GPL?

Complaining that his right to maintain a closed version of TextMate is asymmetrical seems like misplaced entitlement. Should he have kept the source closed, you can bet that you'd need to assign the copyright to him if you contributed something, so why is it worse that he's additionally allowing people to redistribute his code under the GPL?

It boggles the mind.

I dunno, which code is more important, the thousands of lines one guy writes in an unfinished product or the hundreds by someone else that finish it? If he'd have kept it closed source, he'd be in exactly the same place he is now: years into development without a finished product in sight.

There's a part of me that thinks he sees the FOSS community as a great way to get someone to finish his app for him for free. It is, sort of, but usually it asks for something other than money back. Usually that something is that all the code will stay open. By asking FOSS devs to public domain their work, he's asking them to give up the guarantee that their code will stay open.

Complaining that his right to maintain a closed version of TextMate is asymmetrical seems like misplaced entitlement. Should he have kept the source closed, you can bet that you'd need to assign the copyright to him if you contributed something, so why is it worse that he's additionally allowing people to redistribute his code under the GPL?

It boggles the mind.

I dunno, which code is more important, the thousands of lines one guy writes in an unfinished product or the hundreds by someone else that finish it? If he'd have kept it closed source, he'd be in exactly the same place he is now: years into development without a finished product in sight.

...and we'd have nothing. How is that better for anyone? I assume that contributions will be relicensed under the GPL as he makes new releases of TextMate, but even if he just puts them into TextMate 2.0 and never updates the github branch we're still better off. Just don't contribute any code to his branch if you aren't comfortable with that risk.

To answer your rhetorical question: no one person is going to write hundreds of lines of code to finish TextMate 2.0. If this works, tens of people will write tens of lines of code, and Allan Odgaard will (in addition to writing more code) steer the project, deciding what goes in and what doesn't. Your hero developer who swoops in to rescue a failed project is a straw man.

Quote:

There's a part of me that thinks he sees the FOSS community as a great way to get someone to finish his app for him for free. It is, sort of, but usually it asks for something other than money back. Usually that something is that all the code will stay open. By asking FOSS devs to public domain their work, he's asking them to give up the guarantee that their code will stay open.

But anyone can use the TextMate codebase to create FreeMate as long as it's distributed under the GPL. Just like Emacs. I don't think he's expecting "FOSS devs" to contribute anything to his product, but since TextMate is used by a lot of programmers he may be hoping that some of them will want to help him release the next version.

I don't agree with his political stance against Mountain Lion (or with his choice of GPLv3 over GPLv2...), but I think this is an interesting experiment. Even if I didn't, I would defend his right to do whatever he likes with his own code.

Am I sorry that there will probably never be a Textmate 2? Yes. Does TM 1 still work and work really well for me? Oh, goodness, yes.

I own BBedit, and I guess at some point I will figure out how to write custom scopes, commands, and macros in it, but TM made, continues to make, it all so easy.

BBEdit's macros and so forth are actually much more powerful due to the most robust Applescript support I've ever seen. You can also easily have scripts run on open or saving of documents and a lot more. If you want you can also just pass the text to a shell script (I usually use Python) not unlike TM.

I don't use much beyond default scopes so I'm not the one to talk to there. From my editing of simple html with mixed in php, css and javascript it seemed to work as well as TM for what I do. (See this video for an example) If you want to customize the language identification and so forth they have pretty good documentation although I've just not done that much.

The transition of course can be killer. I went cold turkey with BBEdit for several weeks before deciding to abandon TM. I found that a lot of the bundles I thought I used I didn't and everything else I was able to port or find replacements for quickly. That's not to say BBEdit doesn't have flaws right now. It doesn't yet have retinal support, although I suspect it'll be coming soon. It has its own versioning/backup system rather than using Apple's. (Of course TM doesn't support versioning either)

If you want something much more like TM I'd seriously look at ST2. I just don't like it - primarily due to how much of a hassle it is to configure stuff. But it seems to be where a lot of TM people are converging. If anything there are now even more plugins for ST2 than there were for TM.

Thanks, CG. I guess I'll have to spend some time learning BBEdit. (I really can't complain: my usage of text editors is pretty light and I always look for excuses not to be working!) BBEdit certainly seems like the grand old man on the text editing block of the Mac OS neighborhood, and I've already paid for it, so I might as well make use of it. If I can ever manage to master the basics of Python, I should be in pretty good shape!

BBEdit's macros and so forth are actually much more powerful due to the most robust Applescript support I've ever seen.

Thank you very much for this comment.

My inner internet "You must be wrong" kicked in, because AppleScripting under OS X has never reached (for me) a tithe of the level it had under OS 9. The dearth of -recordable- apps has been one stickler.

This led to me checking BBEdit out (again, or perhaps re-again ). I haven't exercised this version to its fullest yet, but I'm left wondering how I missed that it had recordability.

Any prebuilt binaries for us compile-challenged? (was having errors building Clang in ML, I believe)

Very carefully read the instructions - don't forget to do the submodule init. I recommend using homebrew over MacPorts to get the dependencies.

MacPorts doesn't appear to have everything quite ready for Mountain Lion. (I just tried to install Haskell and it had problems). I don't know if Homebrew has the same problems. But if you do have problems I'd probably just wait a little bit for the repositories to get updated.

Any prebuilt binaries for us compile-challenged? (was having errors building Clang in ML, I believe)

Very carefully read the instructions - don't forget to do the submodule init. I recommend using homebrew over MacPorts to get the dependencies.

MacPorts doesn't appear to have everything quite ready for Mountain Lion. (I just tried to install Haskell and it had problems). I don't know if Homebrew has the same problems. But if you do have problems I'd probably just wait a little bit for the repositories to get updated.

Homebrew seems ok for ML; I was able to get a build of text mate (out of morbid curiosity) on Friday.

Any prebuilt binaries for us compile-challenged? (was having errors building Clang in ML, I believe)

You might not need to build – I saw updates for the 2.0 alpha merging patches yesterday and today, so it would seem they're being folded into the official release at a fair clip.

But aren't most of them fairly surface bugs? Of course the deeper bugs and features will take a lot longer. (It's only been a few days) But I think it's fair to be a tad skeptical here.

They are. Baffling things, like the bundle menu popup actually being there, rather than just presenting a dialogue box with ‘bundle menu popup’, are now fixed, but no deep architectural change. Just people scratching their little itches, so far, but it’s early days, I guess. The problem will be if it stays at the itch-scratching stage, and the deeper, more architectural work falls by the wayside.